IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/semrui/186382.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Choice Experiment Approach to assess the costs of degradation as specified by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Author

Listed:
  • Norton, D.
  • Hynes, S.

Abstract

This paper uses the choice experiment methodology to estimate the value of the nonmarket benefits associated with the achievement of good (marine) environmental status (GES) as specified in the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The MSFD requires that the “costs of degradation” (the benefits foregone if GES is not achieved) be considered within a broader ‘Economic and Social Assessment’ of the marine environment by EU member states. Assessing the costs of degradation as defined by the MSFD implies that changes in marine ecosystem services provided in each State should be analysed. The results show that there are high values attached with changes to the state of the marine environment by the Irish general public. The results of a random parameters logit model also demonstrate that preferences are heterogeneous, with changes in certain marine attributes generating both positive and negative utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Norton, D. & Hynes, S., 2014. "A Choice Experiment Approach to assess the costs of degradation as specified by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers 186382, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:semrui:186382
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.186382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/186382/files/14-WP-SEMRU-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.186382?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Hynes & Nick Hanley & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Effects on Welfare Measures of Alternative Means of Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Recreational Demand Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1011-1027.
    2. Jobstvogt, Niels & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen & Kenter, Jasper & Witte, Ursula, 2014. "Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: Estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 10-19.
    3. Paulo A.L.D. Nunes & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2003. "The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2993.
    4. Thomas H. Stevens & Jaime Echeverria & Ronald J. Glass & Tim Hager & Thomas A. More, 1991. "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM Estimates Really Show?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 67(4), pages 390-400.
    5. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    6. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    7. Hynes, Stephen & Tinch, Dugald & Hanley, Nick, 2013. "Valuing improvements to coastal waters using choice experiments: An application to revisions of the EU Bathing Waters Directive," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 137-144.
    8. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    9. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    10. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    11. Roy Brouwer & Julia Martin-Ortega & RJulio Berbel, 2010. "Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    12. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    13. Stephen Hynes & Daniel Norton & Nick Hanley, 2013. "Adjusting for Cultural Differences in International Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 499-519, December.
    14. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic, 2010. "Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 413-424, December.
    15. Doherty, Edel & Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Buckley, Cathal, 2014. "Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 89-97.
    16. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    17. Frank Convery & Simon McDonnell & Susana Ferreira, 2007. "The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 1-11, September.
    18. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
    19. Armstrong, Claire W. & Foley, Naomi S. & Tinch, Rob & van den Hove, Sybille, 2012. "Services from the deep: Steps towards valuation of deep sea goods and services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 2-13.
    20. David J. Bjornstad & James R. Kahn (ed.), 1996. "The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 731.
    21. Birol, Ekin & Karousakis, Katia & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2006. "Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 145-156, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    2. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian & Binner, Amy & Ferrini, Silvia & Fezzi, Carlo, 2019. "Structurally-consistent estimation of use and nonuse values for landscape-wide environmental change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    6. Bujosa Bestard, Angel & Font, Antoni Riera, 2009. "Environmental diversity in recreational choice modelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2743-2750, September.
    7. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O'Connor, Eamonn, 2021. "Valuing the ecosystem service benefits from kelp forest restoration: A choice experiment from Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    8. Hatton MacDonald, Darla & Ardeshiri, Ali & Rose, John M. & Russell, Bayden D. & Connell, Sean D., 2015. "Valuing coastal water quality: Adelaide, South Australia metropolitan area," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 116-124.
    9. Börger, Tobias & Hattam, Caroline & Burdon, Daryl & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Austen, Melanie C., 2014. "Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 229-241.
    10. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    11. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    12. Hynes, Stephen & Chen, Wenting & Vondolia, Kofi & Armstrong, Claire & O’Connor, Eamonn, 2020. "Valuing the Ecosystem Service Benefits from Kelp Forest Restoration: A Choice Experiment," Working Papers 309505, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    13. repec:sss:wpaper:201407 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    15. Zhenshan Chen & Stephen K. Swallow & Ian T. Yue, 2020. "Non-participation and Heterogeneity in Stated: A Double Hurdle Latent Class Approach for Climate Change Adaptation Plans and Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 35-67, September.
    16. Catalina M. Torres Figuerola & Nick Hanley & Sergio Colombo, 2011. "Incorrectly accounting for taste heterogeneity in choice experiments: Does it really matter for welfare measurement?," CRE Working Papers (Documents de treball del CRE) 2011/1, Centre de Recerca Econòmica (UIB ·"Sa Nostra").
    17. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.
    18. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    19. Henry-Osorio, Miguel & Mittelhammer, Ronald C., 2012. "An Information-Theoretic Approach to Modeling Binary Choices: Estimating Willingness to Pay for Recreation Site Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 123432, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Kim, Sooil & Haab, Timothy C., 2005. "Generalized Estimation Methods for Non-i.i.d. Binary Data: An Application to Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19138, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    21. Catalina M. Torres & Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley, 2014. "Incorrectly accounting for preference heterogeneity in choice experiments: what are the implications for welfare measurement?," DEA Working Papers 65, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Departament d'Economía Aplicada.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:semrui:186382. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/semgaie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.